State party agendas: Representation in an era of polarized parties (Minnesota, North Carolina)

This dissertation examines the influence of state party organizational structure on state party ideology and party agendas. I argue this is necessary in order to assess the representative potential of state political parties. I do this by asking two primary questions: (1) how do party agendas vary across the states, and (2) how do differences in party organizational structure account for these differences? While previous studies of representation at the state level focus on the relative liberalism or conservatism of elected officials and party activists, I argue that the content of partisan debate is an important indicator of how parties are representing citizens. I examine these questions through a cross-sectional content analysis of state party platforms in 2000 and 2002, two case studies of state party organizations, and interviews with state party activists and party officials. I code party platforms for ideology, both overall as well as for the expressed positions on ten specific policy areas. The content analysis reveals that parties express meaningful ideological and policy differences in their platforms. In contrast to previous studies, however, I find that party ideology and agendas are only weakly related to public opinion at the state level. Case studies of Minnesota and North Carolina show that party organizational structure influences party agendas. Organized interest groups and activists attending local precinct caucuses in Minnesota have significant influence in the writing of state party platforms, and as a result, the platforms are highly ideological. In states where the party organization or the governors' campaign committee writes the platform, as in North Carolina, the platforms tend to be more moderate, and actually are more attuned to the views of the average voter in the state. While political science generally advocates both strong political parties and high levels of citizen participation, party organizations that are highly responsive to the views of activists may lead to agendas that are unrepresentative of citizens statewide.